MAP Tests and Magnet Selection

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some years, my DC starts off with a really high score in the fall, which then dips in the winter and slightly rebounds in the spring. Other years, he begins with a score about 10 points lower in the fall, shows no change in the winter, and then improves significantly in the spring. His friends’ scores also fluctuate unpredictably. This kind of inconsistency shows why this test should never have been used for magnet school lotteries.

Not really. It shows that your kid isn’t a good candidate for the magnets. The magnet programs are tough and consistency is important. There’s room for some fluctuation but not if it means going below 99th.

DP.

Even if it were true that magnets only should take 99th, MAP is the wrong test. Given its purpose and construction, it would be at best a supporting data point in the identification, better via other means, of those most capable, which is the population for whom magnets principally should be available.

And the post seems unnecessarily mean-spirited. Who is to say that the variation PP noted for their DC wasn't all within the 99th? (Again, not that 99th MAP is a proper magnet litmus.)

It wasn’t. She wouldn’t have been complaining here if it was.

I wasn’t complaining. Just trying to point how unreliable the scores are for magnet placement, given such variations. In fact, my kid was selected for the magnet program.

But many of the selected students were not in the 99th percentile, they were 95th or 94th and now they are in the 89th or 87th. It’s concerning that the score cutoffs vary by cluster—it makes no sense for a student in the 99th percentile to be grouped with others scoring in the 75th to 85th percentile.

Additionally, several students who barely met the cutoff in the fall have since seen their scores decline. This raises the question: if the selection had been based on winter or spring scores instead of fall, the resulting group of students would likely be very different.

100%!!

Agreed.

It also raises an important question: what kind of cohort is being created under this system? If students in less affluent clusters can qualify with scores in the 75th to 85th percentile, then why aren’t students with similar scores in wealthier clusters given access to the same opportunities and programs? The inconsistency in qualifying scores calls into question the overall strength and competitiveness of the selected cohort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yup, it becomes increasingly illogical to put some much weight on MAP as kids progress in coursework.

My kids 7th grade MAP-M score dropped 15 points between fall and spring. This is my kid who regularly gets 99 pctile on MAP-M. They said it was because a lot of the material that was covered in MAP was stuff from "long ago," and that their accelerated middle school math class is covering material that isn't covered on MAP-M. Doesn't mean that it's good that they've forgotten the older material, but it's just one reason that it's difficult to put so much weight on that test.

If the reason for the drop is indeed forgotten stuff from long ago, I think you may have proved the opposite - (i.e) why MAP-M could be a useful data point. For a typical seventh grade kid doing MCPS accelerated math, what is this "long ago" stuff that they forgot? Addition? Subtraction? Multiplication? Division? Ratios? Basic area/volume calculation? Factorization? ... Considering the pace at which concepts are added in the first 5-6 years of math education, if a student is forgetting something from long back, it should raise a red flag.

(Granted stuff like this happens, but we are not talking about an advanced student doing topology forgetting some concept from precalculus that they have not used in a long time ....)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some years, my DC starts off with a really high score in the fall, which then dips in the winter and slightly rebounds in the spring. Other years, he begins with a score about 10 points lower in the fall, shows no change in the winter, and then improves significantly in the spring. His friends’ scores also fluctuate unpredictably. This kind of inconsistency shows why this test should never have been used for magnet school lotteries.

Not really. It shows that your kid isn’t a good candidate for the magnets. The magnet programs are tough and consistency is important. There’s room for some fluctuation but not if it means going below 99th.

DP.

Even if it were true that magnets only should take 99th, MAP is the wrong test. Given its purpose and construction, it would be at best a supporting data point in the identification, better via other means, of those most capable, which is the population for whom magnets principally should be available.

And the post seems unnecessarily mean-spirited. Who is to say that the variation PP noted for their DC wasn't all within the 99th? (Again, not that 99th MAP is a proper magnet litmus.)

It wasn’t. She wouldn’t have been complaining here if it was.

I wasn’t complaining. Just trying to point how unreliable the scores are for magnet placement, given such variations. In fact, my kid was selected for the magnet program.

But many of the selected students were not in the 99th percentile, they were 95th or 94th and now they are in the 89th or 87th. It’s concerning that the score cutoffs vary by cluster—it makes no sense for a student in the 99th percentile to be grouped with others scoring in the 75th to 85th percentile.

Additionally, several students who barely met the cutoff in the fall have since seen their scores decline. This raises the question: if the selection had been based on winter or spring scores instead of fall, the resulting group of students would likely be very different.

Kids with a fluke high score aren't required to attend and drown. It's a non-issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some years, my DC starts off with a really high score in the fall, which then dips in the winter and slightly rebounds in the spring. Other years, he begins with a score about 10 points lower in the fall, shows no change in the winter, and then improves significantly in the spring. His friends’ scores also fluctuate unpredictably. This kind of inconsistency shows why this test should never have been used for magnet school lotteries.

Not really. It shows that your kid isn’t a good candidate for the magnets. The magnet programs are tough and consistency is important. There’s room for some fluctuation but not if it means going below 99th.

85th locally, not 99th.